Article summary from ChatGPT: “The article “Over-Alerted but Under-Informed: Alert Days Blitzing through Local TV Stations” discusses the overuse of “alert days” by local TV stations, which can lead to viewers becoming desensitized to them and ignoring important weather warnings. The author argues that TV stations are more focused on sensationalizing weather events than providing accurate information, and that they are failing to educate viewers about the potential impacts of severe weather. Additionally, the article suggests that TV stations should be more transparent about their sources of information and provide more context about weather events to help viewers make informed decisions. The author concludes that TV stations need to strike a balance between informing and alerting viewers, and avoiding overuse of alert days.”
This might end my eligibility to ever work in TV again but here we go… I’ve always thought that people value straight-forward, factual information.
May not sound too incriminating, but it also means that I refuse to buy into many of the gimmicks used on TV to grab attention. The big one? Using “Alert Days” as a meteorologist.
In fact, it is one reason why I left TV weather.
Truly, there were a lot of reasons I left television. But the first time I said to myself, “this makes me want to change career paths” was the introduction of the “First Alert Weather Day” at WDAM.
You may say, That’s silly Nick. Really? For something so insignificant?
And you may have a point. But let me try and unpack Alert Days under the following issues:
- Confusing viewers
- Reducing long-term potential revenue in favor of short-term gains
- Turning weather into a “high” for the ratings
- Making the meteorologists look foolish
- Reduces viewers inclination for action when action is needed
And these “Alert Days” fall under many names. Some are “Weather Action Days” others are “Code Red” days. But for ease, I’m going to stick with just “alert days” for this article.
Confusion about confusion
It was back in late 2014. I went to a meeting with a handful of the other Chief Meteorologists that worked for other stations in our ownership group. There were a handful of presentations, but the most important one was from a Television Consultant who showcased the idea of “Alert Days,” where the Chief Meteorologist would “declare” that a day as an “Alert Day” if it was going to feature disruptive weather.
This wasn’t an “official” thing from the NWS or any other agency. It was just when someone at the TV station felt like it was needed.
The Consultant said it was important to give people a heads up when the weather was going to significantly impact their daily life. And these “Alert Days” will draw attention to this.
It was a good thing. A helpful thing.
To me, it felt very schticky. More marketing than utility. It was to generic to actually be helpful. It felt like hollering “Look out!” to a random person in potential danger. They’d likely say, “Look out for what?”
That’s why they’ll keep watching, I was told. Oh, so there is some marketing at play here.
Got it.
And, look, I’m no dummy. This is a two fold situation. TV stations are a business, and people tuning in matters. And the other side of the coin is that I know many folks who like an extra heads up that weather is going to be disruptive, annoying, troublesome, or severe.
And in a bubble, where people watch one channel to get one forecast, this may feel like a win-win.
But we don’t live in a bubble.
The reality is that many people watch more than one TV station. They also get on their preferred social media platform. And they talk to other people who do the same things. Meaning inconsistent weather messaging is a near guarantee. This goes for all weather-related information. From different forecast highs, to different timelines of events, all the way down to different colors for different warnings.
I was concerned this would end up being the literal opposite of helpful. If one station is an “Alert Day” station and another is a “Code Red” and another is an “Action Day” station it can all get confusing. Heck, a lot of people don’t know the difference between a “Watch” and a “Warning” and here we are about to introduce a third variable with different wording and no known threshold.
My big concern was if I call for an “Alert Day” but the other TV stations do not, people are going to be left with questions as to why one person says it is and the other does not. And those people may – and most likely will – wonder about that and pay less attention to what the actual forecast is.
When I brought this up, my concerns were dismissed – by both the Television Consultants and some fellow meteorologists – as insignificant. I was told no one would think too deeply about any of my concerns. One fellow on-air meteorologists said, “people who watch me, only watch me and no other channels.”
I’m thinking, My man, stop.
While I didn’t have any direct science to refute any response to my concern, I thought that I had enough secondary evidence to support my point of view.
No one cared. I was told to use these “alert days.” Effective immediately. Mandated. Forced. It was apart of my job now.
As an aside, five years after I voiced my concerns the World Meteorological Organization would find out that people do get confused about the forecast when the messaging is not consistent or unfamiliar. And it happened with the Greek letters being used for Hurricane Names.
The WMO cited a few specific concerns…
— There can be too much focus on the use of Greek alphabet names and not the actual impacts from the storm. This can greatly detract from the needed impact and safety messaging.
— The pronunciation of several of the Greek letters (Zeta, Eta, Theta) are similar and occur in succession.
— In 2020, this resulted in storms with very similar sounding names occurring simultaneously, which led to messaging challenges rather than streamlined and clear communication.
It turns out that confusing messaging does lead to confusion about the forecast
Quite the boost
Now that these were implemented, I was asked to come up with criteria and thresholds. So, I made them very high. It was to be used with a landfalling hurricanes in the area or days with expected, not potential, EF-3 tornadoes or stronger. Or days with more than a few inches of snow or ice and temperatures below 10 degrees.
Basically, weather that rarely happens in my TV market some 75 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.
From 2015 through early-2018 I don’t know how many of these “Alert Days” I had to “declare” but it was less than five. The only one I actually remember was Hurricane Nate. And not because I wanted that day to be an ‘alert day’ but rather, because I didn’t. I was told to. More on that below.
But every time I did declare one, ratings went up and the clicks went through the roof. The number of viewers were higher on the Alert Days – and even the days leading up to the Alert Days, too.
It was early 2018 when I was told “it isn’t used enough.” So it was decided, by management, that the threshold needed to be lowered for our station.
Because of how nebulous “significant impact” is, I was told that a rainy day could be a significant impact. And I couldn’t disagree. That is the problem is qualitative subjective measurement, it can’t be wrong. It could be argued that a ‘significant impact’ to one’s day could be pre-dawn drizzle – particularly if you’re pouring concrete.
So, I took the time to write an entire post on the station website (it is still there, but the author has been changed since I left) about what the new thresholds would be. I’m a scientist and I wanted to make sure that there was at least some kind of measurement here. It meant, though, that from early 2018 through mid-2021, we then issued so many that I lost count. I was rarely the one to ‘declare’ them, too. But more on that later.
But from what I gathered, the real reason to increase the frequency couldn’t about helping people.
During in the previous four years I’d worked at the TV station, I’d never received an email that people were under-informed about the weather.
Often it was quite the opposite. I was being told I was over-informing people.
So, if the goal wasn’t in increase the penetration of the accurate forecast, I figured it was something that had to do more with something else. Like, say, the Bottom Line.
The Research and Development (money) that was invested into the “Alert Day” by the corporation I worked for may have felt wasted since so few ‘alert days’ were issued. I get that. But, probably more importantly, it was really good for ratings and clicks – why waste that opportunity? And since the television station is a business, I get that, too.
Recall, though, it was pitched by the Consultants as “important to give people a heads up when the weather was going to significantly impact their daily life.”
And now it was being encouraged for, perhaps, different reasons.
Money.
The problem is, that when an Alert Day is used sporadically it carries much more weight. Clicks increase, viewers increase, and revenue increases because the “Alert Day” carries more meaning.
Cheapen the meaning, cheapen the product, cheapen the impact. Cheapen the revenue.
When I was forced to declare an “Alert Day” for Hurricane Nate I was rather frustrated. My forecast clearly showed that a majority of the area was not going to be adversely impacted. So, when nothing happened for a majority of the area but we spent three days saying “ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!” it made the TV station look – for lack of a better word – stupid. And reduced the number of viewers, clicks, and potential revenue the next time.
And, with weather, the next time it may matter more.
Psychologically, you can’t help yourself
The reality is that even if there are fewer clicks per “Alert Day” than the previous “Alert Day” there are still more clicks and viewers on those days than any regular day.
Why?
Because the red banners, constant promos, and social media blitz with urgent language give false immediacy. And it plays right into human brain chemistry. It stimulates our active amygdala. And we can’t help but tune in no matter how many times we’ve been burned.
It is something called the Amygdala Hijack within some psychological circles. Marquete University describes it as this: “…When your amygdala tries to take over in non-emergency situations. During an emotional hijack, our thinking brain gets paralyzed, which means our IQ drops, we lose the ability to make complex decisions, we no longer see other perspectives and our memory becomes compromised — Not the most helpful…”
Clever marketing and psychology will always win. No matter how much we fight it, it works
Some cable news channels have been using this tactic with their news coverage for years. Simply ‘shock the system’ with something that triggers an emotional response instead of a logical one, get the amygdala running, and people can’t turn away.
Locally, say, “alert day” and talk about tornadoes and get people thinking with their emotions and they will continue to watch, read, and click for more information.
And if it always works, then turns an “Alert Day” into a potential easy boost for news stations. Because anytime they need some clicks, they know they can go to that well.
Doesn’t matter how low or high the threshold is. Or if there is a threshold at all. Simply declare an “Alert Day” and watch the clicks and viewers increase.
This is how things can get a bit complicated.
Not by choice
And before this reads like a “hit piece” on local TV meteorologists, please know that there are a healthy number of TV meteorologists that simply do it because – like I was – they are told to do it. Sure, some bask in the opportunity to issue these things, but most do it reluctantly, begrudgingly, or with a ‘whatever’ attitude. So I’m not here to indict the character of any meteorologist in particular. It is part of the job.
Or worse, it isn’t even the meteorologist calling for one. It is news management. I recall multiple times when an “Alert Day” wasn’t my choice. Three that I recall from memory: June 26th, 2018, Halloween 2019, and December 16th, 2019. Those were “Alert Days” decided by someone other than a meteorologist.
That creates a problem: When the forecast threat doesn’t match the desired-for-ratings urgency.
Using “Alert Day” language for days when not everyone is impacted is a quick way to reach the problem above. But so is when the threshold is not equally experienced person-to-person, like heat and cold. When it rains everywhere, we all get wet, but when its 90F not everyone feels hot.
Nebulous, subjective, or qualitative thresholds have a way of creating problems. These alert days are all three.
This is where the claims of “Hype Train” start to get rolling. And it isn’t because the forecast is actually calling for a particular event to occur, but rather the perceived risk of a potential event is higher by the public due to the extra production-value added to the forecast.
The example below of a troll on Twitter is an exaggerated look at reality. The forecast was for 8″ to 12″ of snow. But Hannah did a great job explaining in the forecast that if sleet mixes in, then snow totals would be reduced.
The snowfall totals didn’t pan out due to the sleet mixture. Forecast verified. But the Troll poked fun at the Alert Day usage for the eventual 2″ to 4″ of snow. And while 2″ to 4″ is still impactful, it wasn’t as impactful.
You may say, “well yeah Nick, but that’s just a Troll.” And you’re right. But Trolls are just louder, obnoxious versions of humans.
And the troll highlights the problem. Because the forecast was right but the perception of the forecast didn’t meet whatever arbitrary level the “Alert Day” deemed in the mind of the viewer. Because the Alert Day is not measurable.
And if the forecast is actually wrong, then it really creates a very visible problem. Because not only was the forecast wrong, but the TV station spent effort saying, ‘hey look at this!’
The meteorologists that love ’em
There is a steady group of meteorologists who really do revel in the ability to get on TV, with a red banner and flashy graphics, declaring “Alert Days” to get everyone watching them.
And, as someone who (like many others in this profession) is dedicated to putting himself second to others, it really rubs me the wrong way to see some of these meteorologists use these Alert Days to manipulate the public in an effort to serve their own, personal, desires.
I think that line from Jean Luc Picard may work…
Villain is too harsh a term, here. But sometimes these folks are tough to spot. These meteorologists can often boast about meaning well and doing all they can – including these alert days – to save lives. But a quick way to weed these folks out is that they are often the first to talk about themselves and what they did when they were on air saving lives during some crisis moment.
Watch closely. I’d bet a cheeseburger from Ed’s Burgers in Hattiesburg that they’ll be the ones using these Alert Days more frequently.
Again, these aren’t “bad” people, they just get a bit of a thrill being able to grasp the attention of others so quickly. I’m – admittedly – just cranky because I think you, the public, deserve better. And I think these people erode away at the trust between the public and the weather enterprise.
And an even smaller subsect of this profession have a really odd relationship with a Hero Complex. I’m not sure if it is an official ‘complex’ but it is when, basically, a person is seeking recognition, by creating a harmful situation which they then can resolve.
It may look like this:
Them: ALERT DAY! BAD WEATHER IS COMING TOMORROW!
*Bad weather happens*
Them: See, I alerted you with the Alert Day! First! Before anyone else! See how much I care.
Again, it isn’t a directly harmful thing to anyone. I don’t think they are “bad” people. They just care about that little thrill they get. The problem is, this may be indirectly harmful. Especially if the forecast doesn’t pan out.
That’s what they said last time…
Any time a forecast is perceived as incorrect, the next forecast is questioned. And that creates a problem when the forecast includes necessary actions from people to save their life.
What if the forecast called for scattered storms and the potential for severe weather, and it was an “Alert Day” but no severe weather happened? The next time people will be less inclined to take action as quickly.
This is why the National Weather Service tracks the False Alarm Rate for Tornado Warnings. Alerting people unnecessarily erodes trust. And it gets worse over time. And eventually that erosion breaks down the foundation and everything falls apart. And no action is taken when action is needed.
Some of you may be thinking, ‘what’s your evidence?’ and I don’t have an direct evidence, only secondary evidence: Your phone.
Push Notifications are a prime example. If an app sends Push Notifications and pings your phone a few times with irrelevant information, you will turn those notifications off. Or at the very least ignore them.
The “Alert Day” is the same phenomenon. TV stations are Push Alerting you with information that may feel irrelevant if it doesn’t impact you, and so you will eventually ignore that information.
The problem is that sometimes that information could save a person’s life. And because there is not tiering system, there is no way to delineate one “Alert Day” from another. So after a few of these “Alert Days” end up being non-events, it may lead to complacency on days that are.
That should be a big Red Flag to every meteorologist who is a champion for Alert Days: You aren’t actually helping anyone.
And this last piece is my biggest concern. Over-saturating people with unnecessary alerts turns TV stations into the Boy Who Cried Wolf. And my biggest fear is people acting slowly when reaction time matters.
Knowledge is power
If you are a viewer and you’ve noticed these “Alert Days” popping up more and more, now that you know, you can take appropriate action.
The next time you see one of these “Alert Days” from your local television meteorologist, ask them what threshold was met. Ask them how they decided on declaring an “Alert Day” and who made the decision. And ask why this may be an “Alert Day” but when storms damaged your neighbors house a few weeks ago … it was not.
Take time to understand the messaging by the people tasked with informing you about potential life-threatening information.
If you are a broadcaster, recognize you’ve just created an extra step for people to take in order to understand what information you are trying to message. If the goal truly is about informing people quicker and easier, this is not an advantageous avenue.
There is no Silver Bullet to weather communication. There is no one way that everyone will hear a forecast and have confidence in understanding what it means.
But I do know that adding another layer to the cake doesn’t make it any easier to cut through.
So, perhaps taking a page from the National weather Service, and their work with social scientists, could be helpful. The NWS is working to remove all “advisory” wording from the Watch/Warning list. Because too many options was too confusing for people. And they found that reducing the number of “alerts” may help to better communicate the forecast and, in turn, risk.
So, if “Alert Days” are really all about being helpful, perhaps the most helpful thing is to stop declaring them – and, instead, refocus on straight-forward, factual forecast information.
